Can't speak for pre-merger Delta, but at NWA we sought VB (it was called "satellite basing") at least 3 times. We had a high percentage of commuters, and the MEC looked at VB as an option to improve QOL.

The biggest impediment we had to making it work was the "Advance Position Award" system we used. The company was required to tell every pilot where we'd be 3 months in advance, with a systemwide "AE" conducted every month.

Nope, but they can't staff an airline properly for more than 3-4 months at at time! I don't think ANY airline can be properly staffed for very long. VB is a new tool. We'll see if it's useful, or ends up getting tossed away.

 

Just a thought, what if we use the VB position as capital. If we keep it permanently we get a DH policy that puts us immediately first in line for an upgrade and if we are in any middle seat or anything less that comfort we get paid? Just a thought.

 

As I have posted many times if we decide to keep VB's a LOA will have to be written. It can take any form we want and we can ask for anything we want. We are in the drivers seat.
You should already however be basically first in line for a upgrade. PSUP's come ahead of all non revs.

 

Well I agree, and my original concern is after the "honeymoon" we will see the negative side of VB. Once in the PWA it will be much more difficult to rid ourselves of it and be forced to accept a lot more negatives based on it. Still am voting yes, but this is my major concern with this TA. Delta wants this and will make it rosey, just be careful of the thorns.

 

We simply write into the LOA that we can pull it down at any time with 90 days notice.

 

A lot of people keep saying if we don't like it we can just pull it down. I don't know how they'll turn out, but I'm skeptical we'll be able to convince our representation to cancel VBs if we end up not liking them.

I predict they'll have data showing how great the VBs are for the pilot group and will permanently enshrine VBs into the PWA.

Since they'll have access to data which we can't see or judge (like, say, contract polling data), they'll know more than us. Or maybe they won't be willing to rock the boat with the company.

 

sailingfun is exactly correct.
We should never make it permanent. Just extend the "test".

As long as we keep the option to pull it down then we never have to hear ALPA saying, "Sorry. We didn't think they would do that."

 

>>And frankly, cause and effect between VBs and good/bad experience will be difficult to establish for anyone but those who are awarded VB assignments. <<

That is true. So the guys who "win the VB lottery" will be singing in the streets.

I'm wondering if there IS any reliable source of information on the effects of VB on the pilot group as a whole.

To my knowledge, our national union has a roomful of analysts (E&FA) who are ACTUALLY as smart as many of us on the forum here THINK we are. Did they provide us with any information??

Yes, I think they did..



Pragmatically, assuming the contract passes we will see some VB. I see three possible outcomes:

1. Complete disaster for the company. In this case they won't use VBs. Game over.

2. Complete disaster for (most of) the pilot group. In this case, we can terminate the VB program. Game over.

3. (Most likely). Parties wish to continue the VB. Parties meet and concur to finalize a VB LOA. As in any contractual arrangement, there should be an exchange of considerations. If we've gotten to this stage, we know the company sees a benefit. As mentioned before, the pilots bidding VB obviously see a benefit. So who's left in the cold and what can be done to give them a little sugar and get a deal done?

We would be agreeing to permanently surrender a finite, no-zero number of pilot jobs (as per our own expert's analysis) when we have the clear option NOT to do so. It's simply a business decision that will be made by our bargaining agent. I would expect clear and substantial quids that would accrue primarily to those who lose the most from VB (insomuch as we are able to target that subset).

 

There will be those of us voicing loudly our displeasure. Some us bid our equipment when we established a minimum position which we would be willing to occupy once converted. Now, that position has been put at risk with time which may be removed from our base which will knock back to reserve, knock some back to red eyes, or weekend flying. While doing that, we allow the company to subvert the seniority system passively approving of such behavior for future reference. Oh and by the way, some are locked so if they get sent back to reserve, they can't even bid out of category.

Too many unknowns for a trial, a TA, or a permanent move. Kill it.

 

What is with all of the pantie wadding over this?

EITHER party can terminate the 1 year test ANYTIME.

After the 1 year test, both parties must sign an MOU to allow VB to continue. No MOU, no VB.

We have no idea how this will be mechanized. How about we focus on something else and wait til we see what this looks like before we waste heartbeats on an unknown. If it turns out to be heinous, THEN kill it.

.